all of us can learn a lot from your posts so please do not stop.
i cannot say the same for the posts of longandshort who seems to be totally confused.
in one of his recent posts no 1164 he says we should see volume and PRICE.
Tribute to Brooks
- Thread starter padutrader
- Start date
i cannot say the same for the posts of longandshort who seems to be totally confused.
in one of his recent posts no 1164 he says we should see volume and PRICE.
what's the appeal of Brooks (unverified) over verifiable analysis?
you do not decide for me.
he works for me that is the appeal.
he teaches ....you only preach.
Now Longandshort and I don't agree on much but 15 unprofitable years is a long time to follow a teacher and not see much progress.
Maybe, just maybe you could learn something from him. (L&S)
A lot of new traders would be screaming scam if they paid for a course and weren't immediately profitable, yet you have spent 15 years and are still recommending the method. Maybe you should try something different.
The problem with longandshort is he assumes the problem is the teacher/method and not the student.
I strongly suspect the difficulties of padu are padu's and not Brooks and his course.
In a very short time I have seen with my own eyes that what Brooks describes in his course happens in the market.
The focus of discussion here really should be why does Padu not see it?
If some students take organic chemistry at a university and fail, and others get A's and go on to win patents and prizes, do we judge the professor by the students who fail, or by the students who succeed?
Ochem is rooted in empirical analysis. Brooks is not. If the teacher was qualified and subject material robust, then perhaps one should consider the students ability. But if the teacher and subject material is fake (not empirical, not rooted in actual analysis, not recognized by actual professionals in the space), it doesn’t matter how much heart and soul the student puts in.
If price action trading and Brooks was actually legit, wouldn’t he be taught at all of the great business schools and investment banking programs? Why wouldn’t it be what black scholes was based on (it assumes prices follow Brownian motion) if there was merit to it?
Here is a quote from one of Al’s Books. I have done some highlighting in it. To say that Al is a quack is ignorance, especially from someone who has not given his work even a halfway decent study and application. Too many small traders may read this Random, Brownian, and other BS that has been discussed in this thread and just “give up” thinking; there is no way I am going to make it. One poster on this thread (you figure out which one) may find this BS useful for his style of trading, however it has NOTHING to do with what Al teaches. This academic BS can be left for those who have the $$$$ to employ PHD’s to circumvent this crap. If said poster finds this crap useful then he may use all the crap he wants in his trading but in my opinion for small traders this stuff is not going to help you one iota.
The smugness and arrogance cannot be left without response. There is a reason for this sort of posting. You can pick it out in the quote below, of that I am quite sure.
On the other hand if said poster can make millions with this BS well good for him! But to belittle small traders who have no means to employ the resources to wade through this BS is uncalled for. Maybe he needs to give seminars to investment bankers and institutions and forget posting this stuff on ET coupled with trying to apply it to most of the small traders on here. Or make his own thread and label the title in such a way that only institutions or traders of institution capabilities would read. But to post this in a thread titled “Tribute to Brooks” with the seemingly apparent aim to discredit Brooks is not respectful at all IMO and may, in itself, say something about the poster.
IMO Brooks is a much better alternative and feasible route. Al grew up poor. He worked hard to become an eye surgeon. Then he worked hard to become a trader. He would never have left off being an eye surgeon for trading if he were not making more money trading. Think about that!
Happy trading,
Volpri
The quote can also be found in the digital edition of the same book on pages 338 and 339.
The smugness and arrogance cannot be left without response. There is a reason for this sort of posting. You can pick it out in the quote below, of that I am quite sure.
On the other hand if said poster can make millions with this BS well good for him! But to belittle small traders who have no means to employ the resources to wade through this BS is uncalled for. Maybe he needs to give seminars to investment bankers and institutions and forget posting this stuff on ET coupled with trying to apply it to most of the small traders on here. Or make his own thread and label the title in such a way that only institutions or traders of institution capabilities would read. But to post this in a thread titled “Tribute to Brooks” with the seemingly apparent aim to discredit Brooks is not respectful at all IMO and may, in itself, say something about the poster.
IMO Brooks is a much better alternative and feasible route. Al grew up poor. He worked hard to become an eye surgeon. Then he worked hard to become a trader. He would never have left off being an eye surgeon for trading if he were not making more money trading. Think about that!
Happy trading,
Volpri
The quote can also be found in the digital edition of the same book on pages 338 and 339.
Last edited:
Lets define empirical evidence:
What is empirical evidence?
“Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method.”
https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html
I just posted some charts above showing empirical evidence of Al’s concepts. Would you happen to have birdsh$t in your eyes and cannot clearly make some simple observations? I mean like I drew the little circles for hints and you still can’t seem to “get” it. Dude academia has you blinded; apparently.
What you posted is anecdotal evidence e.g. cherry picked charts. Have you verified your trading across out of sample data across different market cycles? Nope.